Tablets and educational software for toddlers...

I'm becoming very interested in purchasing some sort of tablet PC to introduce my two-year-old to computers, and to let her play around with fun learning software. She loves books, but I think a tablet PC could offer her a great way to learn about shapes, colors, letters, numbers etc. And later, it can be used to help her learn some basic reading skills, all while making her comfortable with PCs, without her (further) destroying the machines my wife and I use.

The iPad has a ton of apps that are geared towards toddlers. I'm not sure what the Android has, as I never really looked into it. Our son has a few apps on there he really enjoys(he's 3)

I realize its not a Tablet PC in the way you are thinking, but at least to me it seems like it might work best. It's nice and light and easy for them to hold. Plus it seems to be built well, he has dropped it a couple of times with no problems.

Well, there's always things like the Vtech V-Reader, which we bought and our 19-month old daughter has been good at using for the last 6 months. We tried the Vtech innotab thing, which is their take on a tablet, but it's not going over so well due to interface issues (it wants to swipe/scan a list instead of opening an app) and the button most interesting to her is Power.

Other than that, she does fairly well on my Nook color with Cyanogenmod. She likes some educational software (Monkey lunchbox) and does fine on the Dr Seuss and Boynton books.

once my kid discovered videos on the tablet he pretty much stopped playing any educational apps.

i think what's going on in his head is that a couple dozen episodes of a kids show means that he gets to see something new every few minutes by being completely passive, whereas toddler games and educational apps are kind of repetitive and after playing one for 20 minutes you really have to work hard to find a new feature or maybe there just isn't anything more to discover about ABC or 123 in the land of rainbow flying turtles or whatever.

also there isn't a lot of talking or listening in toddler games so a talkative kid or learning-to-talk kid doesn't get much adventure on that front.

i think if i had a do-over i would get no more than 2 episodes of any chidren's show. they need to be able to get bored on that front just the same as with anything else, just to maintain parity.

It'd be more useful to learn spatial visualization at that age. Physical objects that you can actually touch and fit together.

Yep. Been worrying a bit about that. We've focused way too much (!) on reading/book appreciation and not enough on that. Need to get her some blocks and puzzles. I thought the pad would provide a good middle ground.

It'd be more useful to learn spatial visualization at that age. Physical objects that you can actually touch and fit together.

Yep. Been worrying a bit about that. We've focused way too much (!) on reading/book appreciation and not enough on that. Need to get her some blocks and puzzles. I thought the pad would provide a good middle ground.

For two year old I guess a touch screen device is better than a TV if you need them distracted and quiet for a (hopefully brief) while.

But yeah, physical interaction is important. When I was taking care of my nephew my dad got out the ven diagram toys he made when I was a kid. I can't remember if I found sorting colored shapes entertaining, but my nephew did. And there are always those puzzle blocks you have to figure out how to take apart and put back together, linkin' logs, duplo blocks, Legos, connectex (I think that's the right name), etcetera. Just try not to get anything that will end up stuck in their nose, swallowed, or in a power socket.

When they are old enough that you don't have to (constantly) worry about if they'll eat their toys, or where they'll insert them, erector sets and all the newer variants are great. When my nephew was 8 or 9 I got him a mini band saw; I forget who made it, but really, it's great. Hard to get your fingers in the wrong place and only meant to cut through 1/8" thick balsa wood, but with it, sheets of balsa, and Elmer's clear wood glue you (I mean they ) can make some amazing stuff (especially when combined with the erector type stuff they hopefully already have). From there you can go to hotwires and styrofoam, fiberglass and resin, etcetera. Basically I think parents should spend as much time and effort getting their kids interested in doing science and learning hands on as they spend getting their kids to read books and watch shows about what other people do.

I think puzzle adventure games and fast twitch hand eye games can also be very beneficial. I never did find any video games intended for young children that I considered really educational that were much fun to play, certainly not with much replay value. Hopefully someone can recommend some.

For videos Bill Nye and Good Eats are highly recommended.

As I recall I grew up with Star Trek (various), Misfits Of Science, My Secret Identity, Remington Steele, and Sherlock Holmes, and I don't think that any of those did me any harm. Not sure I can claim no harm came from watching Danny Kay movies and Jackie Chan movies, bit I can't imagine not sharing those with my kids. Very young children may prefer shows with music and bright colors, but I really don't see a need to dumb things down to the level most kids shows tend to.

Just as an aside, I've been spending some time actually checking out a lot of the toddler games/apps on iOS and Android. Some look very interesting, but most look like they'l l benefit her most a year from now. I made the same mistake when I bought her a bunch of educational toys before she was even six months old. So I'll probably delay this a bit.

I ‘m new to gadgets too so I asked my friend if what educational app she uses for her kids and she told me to use Astroloquiz because she got a high review on it. I am convinced on what she said and I definitely give it a try.

It'd be more useful to learn spatial visualization at that age. Physical objects that you can actually touch and fit together.

There really is no reason to assume it's an either/or.

I have a pair of Touchpads, and my kids love them. They're healthy and energetic boys, and they run and climb and kick and throw and jump, build and then smash towers, etc, all that you could possibly want. They're like a cross between the Tasmanian Devil and the Energizer Bunny a large part of the time. But not all the time. They also like using the pads (it's a treat and reward), and they've learned to use webOS and Android quite fluently, they can find, open and close apps at will, etc etc. They each have favorite YouTube videos they're allowed to watch (look at accounts like coilbook and KidsTV123- A.J. Jenkins is brilliant)- certainly better than TV.

A review of the evidence in the Archives Of Disease in Childhood says children's obsession with TV, computers and screen games is causing developmental damage as well as long-term physical harm....The critical time for brain growth is the first three years of life, he says. That is when babies and small children need to interact with their parents, eye to eye, and not with a screen....The American Academy of Pediatrics has also issued guidance, saying "media – both foreground and background – have potentially negative effects and no known positive effects for children younger than 2 years".

Soon, getting our son to put down the iPad became a nightly battle. "It gives him a dopamine squirt," says Michael Rich, director of the Center on Media and Child Health at Children's Hospital in Boston, referring to the brain chemical often associated with pleasure.

Many apps for kids are designed to stimulate dopamine releases—hence encouraging a child to keep playing—by offering rewards or exciting visuals at unpredictable times.

in the NY Times, discussing a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics:

Quote:

Video screen time provides no educational benefits for children under age 2 and leaves less room for activities that do, like interacting with other people and playing, the group said....The new report from the pediatrics association estimates that for every hour a child under 2 spends in front of a screen, he or she spends about 50 minutes less interacting with a parent, and about 10 percent less time in creative play.

Child development is optimized when children engage in activities that are cognitively and sensorily stimulating. In other words - when they do things that pose new puzzles to solve or when make them feel new things....Run your hand over a rug or the couch. Now run it over the screen of your ipad. Which is more interesting and provides a richer textural experience? Which SMELLS? Which is more complex? Playing with blocks, or stuffed animals, or pots and pans provides complex sensory information to a developing baby. Screens don't....Although babies can learn from interacting with an impoverished cognitive environment like an ipad, they do so slowly and inefficiently.

Playing peek-a-boo, reading a book, rolling on the floor with the dog, or banging on pots with spoons are all better for them.

The iPad is merely a virtual environment, no different than a computer, book, TV, or a video game. The level of interactivity differs, amongst them, but that doesn't change the basic fact that as such it is a portal, a means to expose a child to experience they cannot otherwise have.

Yes, going to the moon will be infinitely richer in the flesh, but how likely is a toddler to do that? Likewise swimming with sharks and in the coral reef, petting dinosaurs, riding horses, tracing letters when they are physically incapable of holding pencils, talking to grammy when both parties are separated by thousands of miles, etc.

Too much of anything is going to be a problem, but an iPad in a rich environment is not itself a problem, any more than a telephone, a window, a book, or a video game. Some of the issues you bring up Gisboth has nothing to do with the iPad, itself, and everything to do with child appropriate activities.

EDIT: I want to make myself clear; I'm not advocating digital baby sitting. I'm saying the iPad, like any other technology, is a tool that can be misused, or utilized to it's fullest.

A kid enraptured in books will miss out on a lot of life, too, just like an adult sitting in front of a computer.

My daughter seems fine. I give her the tablet, she plays her games and watches her videos, and she usually brings it back for me within 20 minutes. Sometimes I play the games with her, and sometimes she sits next to her mother (who might be working on her laptop) and uses it.

She still shows a deep interest in books, puzzles, K'Nex, drawing/writing on her whiteboard, riding her bike (in the house) and all the other activities we provide for her. She's more likely to bring a book for us to read or demand that I build/draw with her than she is to ask for the tablet or ask to see Dora.

The iPad is merely a virtual environment, no different than a computer, book, TV, or a video game. The level of interactivity differs, amongst them, but that doesn't change the basic fact that as such it is a portal, a means to expose a child to experience they cannot otherwise have.

Yes, going to the moon will be infinitely richer in the flesh, but how likely is a toddler to do that? Likewise swimming with sharks and in the coral reef, petting dinosaurs, riding horses, tracing letters when they are physically incapable of holding pencils, talking to grammy when both parties are separated by thousands of miles, etc.

Too much of anything is going to be a problem, but an iPad in a rich environment is not itself a problem, any more than a telephone, a window, a book, or a video game. Some of the issues you bring up Gisboth has nothing to do with the iPad, itself, and everything to do with child appropriate activities.

EDIT: I want to make myself clear; I'm not advocating digital baby sitting. I'm saying the iPad, like any other technology, is a tool that can be misused, or utilized to it's fullest.

A kid enraptured in books will miss out on a lot of life, too, just like an adult sitting in front of a computer.

There's an old expression that I think is underused, that applies here. "The poison is in the dose."

This updated policy statement provides further evidence that media — both foreground and background — have potentially negative effects and no known positive effects for children younger than 2 years.

"Research has found that certain high-quality programs have educational benefits for children older than 2 years. Children who watch these programs have improved social skills, language skills, and even school readiness."

"However, the educational merit of media for children younger than 2 years remains unproven despite the fact that three-quarters of the top-selling infant videos make explicit or implicit educational claims."

"However, the educational merit of media for children younger than 2 years remains unproven despite the fact that three-quarters of the top-selling infant videos make explicit or implicit educational claims."

This updated policy statement provides further evidence that media — both foreground and background — have potentially negative effects and no known positive effects for children younger than 2 years.

I dunno, learning how to write letters seems like a positive effect don't you think?

A 2 year old cannot hold a pencil, crayon, or pen, but can trace the letters on an iPad or iPhone.

Likewise, having stories read, games played, and etc, all seem to be equally valid for a 2 year old as a 4 year old. The complexity will differ of course, but the point that an app can expose a child to a world that they are physically incapable of interacting with holds... even to children up to 17 years old.

I understand the appeal to authority works for you, but it is still a logical fallacy.

Media contains stories, values, archetypes, etc, that can be transmitted to a child. I still remember being told that comic books were worthless (and video games!), but my parents didn't agree.

Again, as someone else said, the poison is in the dose. My kids have had iPad time since birth, and it's helped them read, write, spell, etc.

Scribblenauts is a particularly good example: a sandbox where a character can type a word (and adjectives, etc) and the object appears.

Imagine then a 4 year old asking, "How do you spell 'invisible flying unicorn'?" and typing it out letter by letter?

My two year old has her own ZTE Blade running Cyanogenmod 7. She uses it to watch cartoons on YouTube. At the same time, she is learning important UI paradigms and concepts. She is learning that the things need to be charged. She is learning that where she presses is important, she is learning the meanings of common symbols and ergonomes. She is doing so in a natural reward success environment where she wants to perform a task to get a reward and has no penalty for failure. (Other than sometimes me having to reboot it or reflash the firmware)

While she cannot read yet, she is able to turn it on, unlock it, find the YouTube app, use my search history to find Mickey Mouse Clubhouse, and play it. Then change it when she's watched it. These are very important skills and she's learning them on a device I can replace for less than £50 and has already survived being thrown down the stairs.

Answer this: Can you afford to buy another one every 3 months? If not, then do not proceed. Your kid WILL destroy it. It's what kids do. A case described as allowing an iPad to fall from airliner altitude did not prevent a friend's iPad 3 being destroyed by his 3 year old, who simply loosened the case and tossed the thing.

An easily rooted Android is your best bet. ZTE Blade, Huawei Ascend G300, etc. Well supported and most importantly: Very cheap and all over eBay.

This updated policy statement provides further evidence that media — both foreground and background — have potentially negative effects and no known positive effects for children younger than 2 years.

I dunno, learning how to write letters seems like a positive effect don't you think?

A 2 year old cannot hold a pencil, crayon, or pen, but can trace the letters on an iPad or iPhone.

Likewise, having stories read, games played, and etc, all seem to be equally valid for a 2 year old as a 4 year old. The complexity will differ of course, but the point that an app can expose a child to a world that they are physically incapable of interacting with holds... even to children up to 17 years old.

I understand the appeal to authority works for you, but it is still a logical fallacy.

Media contains stories, values, archetypes, etc, that can be transmitted to a child. I still remember being told that comic books were worthless (and video games!), but my parents didn't agree.

Again, as someone else said, the poison is in the dose. My kids have had iPad time since birth, and it's helped them read, write, spell, etc.

Scribblenauts is a particularly good example: a sandbox where a character can type a word (and adjectives, etc) and the object appears.

Imagine then a 4 year old asking, "How do you spell 'invisible flying unicorn'?" and typing it out letter by letter?

The issue is with brain development. At 2 years old, they are only just learning certain things and need the physical interaction aspects of real toys. Depriving a child of that is going to have significant long-term impact. Of course, I don't agree we should restrict access to tech completely (hell, my kid had his own PC at 18 months old) but they do need to have it as an addition to development, not a replacement.

And people wonder why we have some much obesity in the world. Look around you sometime, and see how many people aren't walking around with their eyes glued to some stupid screen they hold in their hands. When was the last time you saw a kid who wasn't obsessed with texting, or tweeting some stupid crap to their 'friends'? Don't they remember how to talk, or write, or read proper language? And Mom and Dad foot the bill just so they don't feel left out. Of what?

Most of us who post on Ars, are involved with computers, one way or the other. We know they can be a valuable tool for research and information. But we also realize they are not the absolute end all. Children haven't developed their intellect yet. Instead we use the technology for a babysitter. Kids are being raised in a digital world that doesn't exist, and they don't know otherwise. I understand parents wanting to give kids the things they never had, but at what price. It didn't kill us to not have a playstation, or an ipod, or gameboy. You want to really blow a kids mind. give him a Rubik's cube.

It isn't being a curmudgeon, though I can be one, so much as pointing out a point which I hadn't seen mentioned. Maybe I missed someone doing so earlier on, though. I have been in catch-up mode of late.

Context: We're going on an 8-hour flight next week, and recently acquired a nexus 7. Stuff to occupy him with would be great, preferably something with mainly visual action and some kind of lock from exiting the app.

Context: We're going on an 8-hour flight next week, and recently acquired a nexus 7. Stuff to occupy him with would be great, preferably something with mainly visual action and some kind of lock from exiting the app.

Context: We're going on an 8-hour flight next week, and recently acquired a nexus 7. Stuff to occupy him with would be great, preferably something with mainly visual action and some kind of lock from exiting the app.

Also, a cover that'll let him chew it without doing too much damage?

took an 11 month old on a 3 hour flight a year and a hafl back.

he wouldn't have cared for screen time, didn't until 15-18 months. was way more interested in things he could suck on and shake

Context: We're going on an 8-hour flight next week, and recently acquired a nexus 7. Stuff to occupy him with would be great, preferably something with mainly visual action and some kind of lock from exiting the app.

Also, a cover that'll let him chew it without doing too much damage?

took an 11 month old on a 3 hour flight a year and a hafl back.

he wouldn't have cared for screen time, didn't until 15-18 months. was way more interested in things he could suck on and shake

in summary, I wouldn't bother so much at that age.

It really depends on the kid. My daughter was watching 2 hour movies by then.

She loved watching Princess Bride and Pride and Prejudice for some reason.